DCG

I can't remember a time when you needed Windows operating systems to run Office. In fact, I just ordered (yesterday) an iMac for my wife (configured with MS Office pre-loaded). What else (it's not MS Office) has driven corporations to upgrade to Windows 7 desktops instead of to Mac desktops? Point taken on your first point (I think Microsoft started making Office for macs in the mid 90's, but you're right on that. One your second point, there are 3 reasons I see: 1. Cost of buying a large amount of Macs 2. Cost involved in switching (including training people on how to use a new operating system). 3. The software and programs they use are Windows based (this is the main reason every company I've worked for has used PC's, although cost is of course part of it as well). The 3rd point is the important one. As far as software goes, as more and more software runs on the Internet (I hate using the term 'cloud' - it's the internet), there is less of a need for the Windows operating system. Regarding the 2nd point, web-based software technologies is making it easier and cheaper to switch. I'm not saying there won't be any need for operating systems, just less of a need for a specific operating system. And I still think we're several/many years away from large businesses really adopting that model. Regarding why companies upgraded to Windows 7, well a lot of them haven't, and the other main reason is because Vista was horrible. There are a lot of large companies still using XP, which is around 10 years old. As software becomes more and more web-based, there will be less of a need to upgrade to newer versions of Windows. The last company I worked for, which was a fortune 100 company with around 25,000 employees was still using a DOS system as their main system, and was still on XP (they just 'upgraded' to Office 2007' right before I left, but had no plans of upgrading to Windows 7. It takes large corporation a long time to change their systems infrastructure, which is why I said this change is going to take a while. I'm not at all saying that Microsoft of going to go out of business soon or anything like that; just that their future is pretty cloudy, and they've shown an inability to execute well under Balmer. Worst of all, the Microsoft brand is eroding. Like it or not, a lot of people (especially young people) are embarrassed to be seen with their products (when do you ever see people showign off their new Windows phone to their friends?).

& as everything moves 'to the cloud' why will people/businesses need to keep paying for Windows? You can use MS Office online. There will be less of a need for people to buy Microsoft's crappy operating system. :P They can grow in their online services, but there are other companies out there providing similar services, often for free. I'm not saying there won't still be demand for their products - I just think it will get to the point in the not to distant future where businesses won't need to rely on Microsoft's products and operating system.

What if your per-user purchased software licenses and per-user settings were mirrored in "the cloud"? HKEY-Current-User (or an improved analogue of it) follows you wherever you go. How about at least some of your files being mirrored in "the cloud"? You simply take a folder on your computer that you wish to have mirrored, and tag it with a property to have it mirrored? How much can they charge users for such a service? Or think of something like "MobileMe", but for Windows. There are revenue opportunities here -- more than you get from just selling Windows licenses. Or you can just use Google Docs for free, or for only $50/year per user for businesses of any size.

What great new products do they have coming up? They're product strategy seems to be to wait for Apple and Google to to release products, then wait a year or two and release an inferior product. -And they're not really 'in the cloud' as much as their advertisements try to claim. I still don't understand how any shareholder could be happy with Steve Balmer running this company.

The real winner in this deal is eBay, which made a $1.4 billion profit on its original investment. They still owned 35% of the Skype.

Yeah, but Miscrosoft paid $1,000 per paying Skype user.

There are a lot of companies trying to do this.

yeah...even down $4 Billion, it's going to take a long time for Skype to earn $4 Billion in revenue. That $8 Billion was arguably more valuable as cash.

-Seems like there are a ton of better companies out there that they could've bought for $8 Billion. -Microsoft probably could've just replicated Skype's technology in a couple months using a few of their developers. Yes, they are gaining Skype's users, but those users are people who except the service to be free. As a shareholder of both Apple and Google however, I greatly appreciate everything Steve Balmer has done to run Microsoft into the ground.

Wow. He sounds like he'd be a good interview for CNBC. He's right in line with a lot of the moronic analysts they have on there who start their own investment company, give themselves a ridiculous title like 'Senior Chief Executive Dynamic Strategist of Synergistic Global Markets' and then spend 90% of their time promoting themselves on TV rather than actually investing.

yeah...building into Windows phones is where the potential is. Otherwise, Skype has built a good brand, but not really one people want to pay for.

I deleted my posts at your request. My request for you going forward though is to please not delete every thread you start, as that serves little purpose.

I'm sorry, but that is completely ridiculous on so many levels. Are you seriously going to cast aspersions on Harry's character based on speculation? Harry is a young man trying to make a name for himself in the investing world, do you seriously think that he is going to jeopardize his name and reputation to make a few bucks shilling a stock he doesn't believe in? You do realize the potential damage that you are causing to him with your allegations? You do realize that what you write on a message forum can be used against you in legal proceedings? If you know something the rest of us don't, then please enlighten us. Harry strikes me as the kind of guy who is quite passionate about what he writes, and has a high conviction in his beliefs. While some might have considered him abrasive in the past, I thought he bent over backwards to be respectful towards conflicting opinions. A few of you then made unfair personal attacks on him. It seems to me that a collective bout of groupthink seems to afflict some of you folks once Harry posts. Is it a success complex - I don't know. Did you even read my posts? I did not slander him. All I said is that his actions could give people a certain impression and that deleting every thread you start defeats to purpose of a forum (how are people going to benefit from ideas when threads are deleted when people share their own opinions?). And Harry, thank you for answering those two questions.

That's not my wish. My wish is for you to simply answer questions when people ask them, and to not delete threads.

I truly hope and believe you're not trying to pump stocks, but what are you hoping to accomplish by putting your post on seeking alpha if not hoping the post will get other people interested in buying the stock (which seems to be working today). As you saw with Ebix, you are clearly aware of the potential of posts on SA to move small stocks like this. And as I said again, look at this from someone else's view (something you kept telling people to do in the other thread). When you see someone promoting a stock on a forum, and then on Seeking Alpha, it just makes people question how many other places and forums you posted that on as well. Again, I'm not saying you are pumping, but just consider the possible opinions people might get from you doing this, and then deleting the thread after people confronted your thesis. This is just offensive. So now, in your world, the only reason to post on seekingalpha is "to get other people interested in buying the stock." I guess then, that no one can now post on seekingalpha without being subject to your innuendo. That's incredibly insulting. Now you are implying unethical intentions without actually saying so. Some of us actually believe that we have valuable comments which can help improve real businesses in the real world. My record is clear, I spent a great deal of time suggesting ways in which Fremont's underwriting could be improved. I spent a great deal of time with SURW suggesting ways in which a dividend could improve shareholder value. It is quite the opposite. I am trying to help the business operations of these companies improve. Your innuendo is unfair and anyone familiar with my record knows that it is a cheap shot at someone who has worked diligently on behalf of the public to improve the operations and corporate governance of multiple companies. My absolute dream in life is to create win-win situations where everyone benefits. Winning is nothing unless we all win together. You're still not answering my questions: -what are you hoping to accomplish by putting your post on seeking alpha if not hoping the post will get other people interested in buying the stock? -What makes you convinced that they will raise the hold %? I do truly appreciate your ideas on here and trying to help people out. What I do not at all understand is you deleting pretty much every thread you start. That defeats the purpose of a forum. How were you slandered in the Ebix thread? Are there are arguably no 'win-win situations in investing, as there is a buyer and a seller to every trade.

Thanks for clarifying Parsad. Didn't realize people could delete their own threads. Very strange that Harry would have deleted that thread.

Why would that thread have been deleted? You guys had one of the best debates going that this place has had in a long time, and put a lot of time into it. Maybe it's not a forum bug then, but are threads on here just deleted with no notice somewhat frequently, and if so, why not just lock the threads so people can still read them, rather than deleting them entirely? Deleting threads from spammers and trolls is one thing, but I'm confused why an engaging debate on a company from 2 long-time members of this board would just be deleted. -and please don't just delete this thread, as I'm curious about this, and I assume other board members are as well.

Anyone else notice issues on this board where posts just seem to disappear for a period of time? For example, right now I am trying to find Harry's idea thread. It's nowhere. It does not currently come up for me under 'Investment Ideas', 'General Discusion', Unread Posts or anything. But if I come back in a day or tow, it will reappear. I notice this (among some other bugs) on here pretty frequently. I know good message board software usually isn't free and it's not usually an easy process to migrate everything to new software, but any thoughts on migrating the board to better message board software (such as IP.Board) at some point? Not sure if the advertising covers the hosting fees, but maybe even if a bunch of us on here donate a few bucks each we can help pay for a software upgrade (I think IP board actually even offeres a hosted service for a comparable price to what most hosting companies charge just for hosting). That all being said, Sanjeev, I greatly appreciate everything you do for this site, and you probably don't have a ton of free time to worry about this type of thing, but I just wanted to throw it out there, since this Simple Machines software seems to have some issues.

How do home prices relate to a double dip? Home prices have gone pretty much nowhere but down over the last several years.

I know it was with his personal account, but him buying huge amounts of CHK stock on Margin at around $60 a share near the top of the oil boom, and then doing tons of media appearances pumping CHK stock destroyed his credibility in my eyes. Every time I hear this guy speak I get the impression that his only goal is making as much money for himself as possible and could care less about CHK shareholders.

I'm real surprised on the love for CHK on here. I don't trust Aubrey McClendon's capital allocation decisions.

Yep. Bin Laden's death obviously will not end Al Qaeda or terrorism, and won't bring the troops home, and I don't know if there will ever truly be closure, but the one thing it does bring is satisfaction that Bin Laden was finally directly punished for his actions.

I don't disagree with that, but the other side of it is if he didn't do anything the people would complain about that. A lot of people just like to complain about the govt no matter what, and form opinions without understanding what they're complaining about. And unfortunately too many people don't make intelligent decisions on their own without the government setting some rules (it was largey people that got themselves into trouble with things like the sub prime mortgage mess. People like to use things like the banks as a scapegoat, but it was their own stupidity that led them to buy houses they can't afford). I know that's a broad example, and i don't want to get too far i to it, but i think there are some things that the govt should have a say in, and of course other things which they should not. I think people just think the government I more involved in their lives than they actually are.

I agree with Sanjeev, and have been very happy with Obama. Not to turn this into a political discussion, but there are a lot of Republicans out there that will dislike a Demorcrat president (and vice versa) for no real reason. I don't like our partisan system, but it's not going to change any time soon. What more do people want Obama to do? Lastly, I've never understood the view that many investors always seem to have that republicans are better for the stock market, since history has been the complete opposite of that. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/08/political-party-democrat-republican-stock-returns.asp Back to the main subject...I'm very happy Bin Laden is dead (although I do worry a bit about retaliation from the Al Qaeda crazies. -And Fox news channels are terrible and are not representative of most American news outlets.

As total number spent on R&D, Apple spends much more, as they have over 4x the revenue of RIMM. With revenue approaching 90 Billion, Apple is spending well over 2 BILLION a year on R&D! It's not the amount they spend on R&D that's so important. It's the return on that investment. And that continues to be huge for Apple.